Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

natesilver.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 280 posts

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#151

Post by an0malous »

jppope wrote: post #78

The comments here are wild. Uh the answer is football/basketball/baseball. We send our best athletes into football, basketball, and baseball. They don't play soccer. I would argue its more shocking that we are as good we are considering the talent pool.

The root cause is that no one watches soccer so there’s no money in it. It’s not like there’s a limit of 3 sports we could send athletes to, but since no one watches soccer here there’s no money for fields, equipment, training, coaching, athletic science, etc.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#152

Post by majormajor »

surgical_fire wrote: post #69
drewmate wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The same is basically true for most other sports in the US too, and yet there are still high-level Americans. Certainly baseball (which other countries do still play in a limited fashion), hockey and football. With football we are undisputed world champs for the last 60 years! Joking aside, there is no doubt that high-level NFL players are seriously talented and their whole sport revolves around structured practices…

The thing is that the US team sports you can think of such Baseball or American Football, have nearly no popularity outside of the US. Maybe Baseball in places like Japan or Venezuela. Maybe the only parallel to soccer I can think of is sports like Rugby in UK and some English-speaking countries, Cricket in India, and some sports endemic to countries (such as GAA in Ireland). The best way to compare the US to other c…

Baseball obviously has high popularity in a substantial number of non-US countries, though the main ones that feed the MLB (the DR, Venezuela, and Cuba) aren't often top-of-mind countries for many. The Japan/Korea interest is obviously non-trivial too.

Basketball is the obvious one you're leaving out that's about the same age as Volleyball (itself a US team sport), and probably has the most international popularity -- especially if just going by people-counting since China alone is an enormous market.

Funny thing, though: US players make up about 73% of the MLB but about 78% of the NBA, despite the NBA having more international popularity, and the current best players in both being from non-US countries.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#153

Post by hunterpayne »

vjvjvjvjghv wrote: post #137
misterinfo wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At my high school and college, the best athletes were playing Football or basketball not soccer. If some of those athletic running backs were playing soccer all their life they would've been a problem.

The physical attributes needed for soccer are quite different from football or basketball. I don't think any football or basketball players would be good at soccer even if they tried.

Nope, not true at all. The average NFL CB makes the best athletes in soccer or rugby look like furniture movers, even in drills designed for soccer. Same for the majority NBA PGs. There is a lot of overlap in team sports for specific types of athleticism. The average pro you see on TV could usually beat the best player in your hometown at whatever sport they played. And not just beat, but beat badly. There are NFL DTs that can do 360 dunks and run a 40 in 4.6sec (at 300lbs) which is faster than your average pro striker in soccer.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#154

Post by jandrewrogers »

hunterpayne wrote: post #147
Detrytus wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, nfl/nba are focused on big guys, 6’3 and above. In soccer your height/mass doesn’t matter much so the talent pools don’t overlap. And baseball is the old man’s game that does not require any athleticism at all.

The average NFL CB is the same size as a striker, but quicker and faster. And it isn't even all that close. Its the living and breathing soccer that matters. In those places, the best athletes play soccer. In the US, they play football or basketball. And if you think you can do anything at a pro level without extreme levels of athleticism, you are greatly deluded.

The amount of distance covered in a soccer game is twice that of a cornerback in an NFL game. Unlike NFL, soccer also has very limited substitutions so you can't readily swap in fresh legs. An athlete needs to be able to go the full distance at a high level.

A natural cornerback isn't going to be "quicker and faster" over that many miles without a different kind of conditioning that probably favors different genetics. That said, I do think the game would translate well for some cornerbacks in some roles.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#155

Post by waltfy »

fsckboy wrote: post #64
waltfy wrote: post #4

Not American. Don’t live in US. The outside impression I get is that the game simply isn’t one of the kids’ default street sports.

the US has a large relatively recent influx of Latino populations, and they play a lot of soccer, and in a number of cultures also baseball

Interesting, I didn’t think of that. Growing up in Brazil, soccer was essentially the only sport boys played, at every opportunity.

In the absence of a ball, we’d dislodge the plastic ball from a roll on deodorant packaging and play with that, or a table football ball (which hurt a lot).

Then - in my late teens - studying in the UK football (soccer) was also predominant, played during breaks etc.

My point being that the US is along other large nations such as India, China which culturally favour other games/sports.

Contrast these nations with Uruguay for example, tiny country… has won the World Cup. I do not know this, but I’d hazard a guess that soccer is THE game in the streets of Uruguay.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#156

Post by surgical_fire »

majormajor wrote: post #152
surgical_fire wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that the US team sports you can think of such Baseball or American Football, have nearly no popularity outside of the US. Maybe Baseball in places like Japan or Venezuela. Maybe the only parallel to soccer I can think of is sports like Rugby in UK and some English-speaking countries, Cricket in India, and some sports endemic to countries (such as GAA in Ireland). The best way to compare the US to other c…

Baseball obviously has high popularity in a substantial number of non-US countries, though the main ones that feed the MLB (the DR, Venezuela, and Cuba) aren't often top-of-mind countries for many. The Japan/Korea interest is obviously non-trivial too. Basketball is the obvious one you're leaving out that's about the same age as Volleyball (itself a US team sport), and probably has the most international popularity -…

The thing about basketball is that it is typically not a sport where it's a primary interest.

Go to places where you find good Basketball players. Germany, former Yugoslavian countries, Spain, Argentina... All those places are primarily Football countries.

You will find a few people interested in the sport, some youngster might be playing it for fun, but still very much behind football.

It's just not comparable.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#157

Post by surgical_fire »

skywhopper wrote: post #118
surgical_fire wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is that the US team sports you can think of such Baseball or American Football, have nearly no popularity outside of the US. Maybe Baseball in places like Japan or Venezuela. Maybe the only parallel to soccer I can think of is sports like Rugby in UK and some English-speaking countries, Cricket in India, and some sports endemic to countries (such as GAA in Ireland). The best way to compare the US to other c…

I can’t speak to its actual popularity, but when I visit Europe and local folks hear I’m from the US, I’m surprised how often they are interested in talking about the NBA. Maybe it’s more pronounced in Eastern Europe where a lot of basketball talent has made it to the NBA over the years.

Well, if you are from the US, and I was talking to you about sports... Yeah, I would try to find a middle ground so that a conversation could happen. NBA is likely a reasonable thing to try.

Why would I bother talking to you about Bundesliga, Champions League, Libertadores Cup or whatever else?

Also, I worked with many people from Eastern Europe. Apart from Lithuania, I think all other countries are interested in Football more than in Basketball.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#159

Post by dfxm12 »

waltfy wrote: post #4

Not American. Don’t live in US. The outside impression I get is that the game simply isn’t one of the kids’ default street sports.

This is part of it, but you only need a few dozen great players to put together a program. Another part is organization. Italy has kids playing calcio in the streets by default, but FIGC has been run poorly for decades. USSF tries, but similarly is a little in over their heads.

Re: Why isn't the U.S. better at soccer?

#160

Post by loloquwowndueo »

eldaisfish wrote: post #135
huevosabio wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mexico performs as you'll expect a third world country that loves football to perform, and the US performs as well as you would expect a first world country that is ambivalent to football to perform. I think the real mystery is, how come Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay play so much better than what you would expect from relatively poor countries? My guess is that their leagues are fairly developed industries, like you…

Football in Brazil has history, legacy, and mind share. I can name several professional teams from Brazil - Flamenco, Corinthians, Santos, etc. I also know of River Plate, Rosario and Boca Juniors from Argentina. This points to the fact that Brazilian and Argentine teams are older than the Mexican teams. I cannot name a single Mexican team, and that is partly because the oldest club dates back to the 1940s. The oldes…

> I cannot name a single Mexican team, and that is partly because the oldest club dates back to the 1940s.

Teams like Atlante and América were founded in 1916.

Post reply on HN